Thursday, January 10, 2019

Put A Pin In This, For When The "Trumpian Adder-Wall®" Shutdown Ends...

Overnight, in San Diego, Ms. L's lawyers have set forth the rock solid 13 page explanation of why this is an "opt-out" rather than opt-in class action settlement. The clearly correct best bit is quoted in blue below. Of course, all the action on all these border cases is effectively stayed as Trump's lawyers cannot appear, even on a voluntary basis (nominally), for the government, under applicable federal law -- without being paid therefor.

[I also write separately related to Merck -- and post a graphic -- to note that the Supremes have decided not to take up a challenge to the fees Merck owes Gilead, for unclean hands and bad faith, in California -- on the patent case pending before Judge Labson-Freeman. Gilead gets to keep about $15 million, in legal fee reimbursement -- and need not pay the $200 million Merck was originally awarded at trial. Now you know.]

. . . .This [settlement agreement] is unambiguous that class members must take affirmative action to waive the procedures (“such waiver decisions”), and therefore class members who take no action are afforded relief. This language would be completely different if -- as the Government contends -- class members were required to submit claim forms to receive relief. The settlement agreement, and the Court’s orders approving the settlement, would describe a claim process, not a “waiver” process, and would likely articulate a requirement to submit a claim form and set a deadline for submission of claims, as is common in other types of class action settlements . . .

So, we now await the "Adderall® induced" idiot's end of his shutdown, to see what happens next in all this asylum/refugee/border litigation -- but the "brown people without papers" clearly hold the upper hand -- because they need rely on only three pieces of (very public) paper: the provisions of (i) 8 USC, (ii) our Constitution and (iii) the treaties signed as contemplated thereunder.

Onward, smiling -- as I look toward the Gulch this afternoon. . . ever, onward -- snow coming in, up here tomorrow night. Lovely. Truly lustrous -- and lovely.



Anonymous said...

on a different note, what are your thoughts re: the claim of a national emergency, reassignment of funds from disaster relief for the wall?

condor said...

I think this is best seen as two questions: (1) does he possess legal authority to do it, on the very scant record he has offered thus far?

And. . . (2) if he does it, what will be the political response?

As to (1), I think he will be TRO-ed, and then enjoined -- pretty quickly, in the federal courts of Southern California. So (if he does it all as presently described), sometime in 2020, the Supremes will decide whether he has the authority as a legal matter, to use disaster relief money as his personal "slush funds" -- though that didn't turn out very well for Tricky Dick Nixon, and Spiro Agnew. [I suspect he must provide better evidence to designate it a true national emergency.]

As to (2), I am pretty clear that this will be a winner for Democrats. The talking point that he took money earmarked for Florida and Texas hurricane victims, and built a completely ineffectual barrier to keep out a largely imaginary threat -- all while diverting attention and resources away from opioid epidemic, and real terrorism fighting measures.

God forbid there should occur any other "domestic" terror incident (and prior experience suggests that is likely), NOT from tunnels under or climbers over the borderland -- while he is building that abomination. An airliner attack or some white supremacist shooter (home grown). . . will turn even the Republicans against his nonsense.

In that vein, I do think many Republicans will be unseated in 2020, if they kow-tow to his personal vanity, in building the shithole Adderwall.

SO. . . my hunch is that Republicans will find a "third way", to deal with him -- to avoid this. But we shall see.

That's my $0.02.

Namaste -- and onward.

condor said...

As to the end of (1) -- I should have ALSO said I don't think any really competent evidence for his position exists. So he will lie, and the courts will call him out on it -- and TRO this nonsense.